Base Awards?

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by PeteBooth


In OBR (Jim Evans interpretation) the batter is out for interference, dead ball, and (in this case) inning over.

From Warren Willson's response above quoting Evans: "These are accidental acts which may be adjudged to be interference (umpire's judgment). Any intentional act on the other hand shall always be penalized."

So if I read the quotes from Evans properly Using OBR - "boils down" to Umpire Judgement not necesarily BR out for interference. Evans uses the term may be adjudged to be interference which the way I interpret means - Umpire Judgement.

As Papac C responded FED / NCAA have actual rulings on this type of play - OBR leaves it up to the judgement of the umpire.

As I responded originally, in OBR the actual INTENT of the interference infraction would lead one to the proper ruling.
Also, since this is not a batted ball situation, intent does come into play.

Pete Booth

Pete,

I agree that this is an umpire's judgement call. My response to Thom was predicated in his statement that you had to award bases under OBR. Clearly you don't, IF you adjudge that interference has occurred under OBR 7.09(a).

Be very VERY careful on the issue of "intent" with this rule. Evans' point is that "intent" may NOT be required for such accidental interference to result in the batter being called OUT. He is saying that the current professional interpretation is that even accidental (read unintentional) interference with the catcher's play might STILL be ruled interference by the batter under OBR 7.09(a).

In this particular case it might be hard to rule otherwise! If the alternative is to award 2 bases to the offense for their act (intentional or not) in kicking the ball out of play, what would YOU do? Award the batter 2 bases for kicking the ball out of play? "I don't think so Tim" would be my response. They shouldn't even get 1 base, if your judgement says the batter would easily have been thrown out. If that's the case, calling the batter out using OBR 7.09(a) maintains the balance in the game. That batter was going to be out anyway, and the runners are returned because it was the offense who sent the ball into dead territory.

I know there are those who will argue that if the catcher had handled the ball, this wouldn't have happened. Well so what? Blocking a bad pitch is still a good and reasonable play by a competent catcher, and who said the batter had to swing at that pitch in the dirt anyway? I'd say those two "errors" pretty well balance each other out, wouldn't you?

Cheers,

Warren Willson